Run Your Own Race

In 2009-ish, my parents disowned me, then a little later on I disowned them. The reason? First, my parents disowned me for writing a short essay on Facebook about why I'm an atheist. This wasn't the first time, but it was the most tragic time because it took. They had taken a hard right into Tea Party territory, and would NOT relent with their political crap. The final act that took me to no contact was when I asked for a simple boundary: Let's not talk about politics when we're together.

My dad told me that boundary was impossible because socialism would never work. I hadn't said anything about socialism. I'd just voted for Obama. I knew what socialism was. I'm okay with democratic socialism, but I hadn't talked about the nuances of that with my dad at any time ever. It was a thread of the brainwashing coming loose because I'd directly challenged racist and sexist comments I'd heard. No boundary? No parents.

Fifteen years later... my dad is dead. He died in 2020 after a six-year bout with Alzheimer's. I found out in 2021 when I suddenly got an email from a lawyer because the dipshit died without a will, so I was due to inherit a little cash. Not much. Mostly, what was left after he sold my grandma's house after she died. My mom spun this story to the lawyers that they'd reached out to me before and I'd denied their money, so I probably wouldn't want this either. That initial lie was so damaging I spent the next two years trying to figure out if I could trust ANY of the lawyers involved, learning how to look this shit up online, and also how to manipulate lawyers.

My mom's in South Dakota. She did her best to hide this from me during the legal proceedings to the extent of waiting to give me my check until she could come to Washington herself and have the lawyers send it so I wouldn't get her address. I still have it, Sheri. Public documents are public, you moron.

So, listen, I have a note for all of you out there who are ditching your parents who voted your rights down the river. The air's better out here, and remember what you learned as a kid? Actions have consequences, even if they aren't intended consequences. They made their beds, now it's time to sleep in them. Alone.

You don't owe anyone your forgiveness, least of all people who keep stabbing you in the back while insisting it's for your own good. Your parents voted for someone who said, loudly and proudly, that your rights, your autonomy, your very existence were up for debate. They heard that message, and they shrugged, and they pulled the lever for hate anyway. Because maybe they didn’t want to pay a few extra bucks for gas. Or maybe they thought it was all just a joke, and they’d rather troll the “woke” than stand by their own child. Whatever their reasons, they chose convenience over your humanity.

And you know what? That’s on them. They made that choice. And now you get to make yours.

I’m not going to sugarcoat it: Going no contact hurts. It feels like something has been ripped out of you, and the hole it leaves behind doesn’t just close up overnight. But the thing is, you can’t heal in a place where you’re constantly being wounded. You can’t grow in a space that keeps demanding you shrink yourself, that keeps telling you that your worth is conditional, that your rights are negotiable. Sometimes, the only way to survive is to leave, to say, “No more.”

And out here? It is better. It’s freer. You get to build your own family, your own community. One that sees you. One that loves you, no conditions, no strings attached. One that doesn’t vote against your existence or try to tell you that your life is worth less than theirs. And yeah, sometimes it’s lonely. Sometimes you’ll wish you had the parents that movies and TV promised you. But every time you stand up for yourself, every time you choose your own dignity, you’re building something better. You’re building a life that’s yours, not one that you have to cut pieces off of just to fit into their mold.

And your parents? They made their choice. They chose Trump, they chose bigotry, they chose hate, and now they get to live with the consequences of that. If that means they lose their child, if that means they have to sit with the empty seats at holiday dinners, well, that's what happens when you decide that your comfort is worth more than your own child’s life. Maybe someday they'll realize what they lost. Maybe they won't. But either way, it’s not your burden anymore. You’ve carried it long enough.

To everyone feeling the weight of that decision this week—wondering if you’re doing the right thing, if you should give them just one more chance—know this: you deserve more than people who will barter away your rights for their own comfort. You deserve love that doesn’t come with a vote against your humanity. It’s okay to walk away. It’s okay to let them feel the weight of their choices.

Because out here, there are people who will fight for you, who will love you without conditions, who will see your humanity without you having to prove anything. And that’s worth more than every forced family dinner or fake apology. That’s worth more than trying, again and again, to convince someone to love you in a way they clearly can’t.

Let them sleep in the bed they made. You’ve got your own life to build, one where your value isn’t up for debate, one where your rights aren’t negotiable. It’s time. Leave them behind, and start building something better.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

There are plenty of awful stories about this election—boys in classrooms taunting girls with “your body, my choice,” racists sending vile texts, pickup trucks full of angry men waving nooses, and the endless Democrat blame game. The truth they don't want to admit is pretty simple: America is still too racist and sexist to hire a Black woman.

But I don't want to dwell on all that. Instead, I want to talk about the weird little rays of sunshine that showed up during this election.

Every morning I walk my dog—a feisty terrier mix we rescued in 2017. We live in a small, dog-friendly retirement community. My dog has a few friends we bump into on these walks. Until recently, politics never came up, aside from some mild tension when we put up our pride flag. The dogs didn't care, of course, and their humans just warned me about a few snarky neighbors who might have a problem. We laughed it off.

There’s V, an 89-year-old woman who walks her little white dog five times a day. N, in his 60s, has a small dog also named Maggie—we call her “other Maggie.” And C, in her 70s, has a little dog named Chevy. My dog, Maggie, is always eager to meet anyone and everyone. On our walks, we share info about coyote sightings and talk about the weather and HOA drama. V gives me the best gossip. N is chill and always ready to chat, while C is a bit more reserved but loves a good dog playdate.

So that’s the crew—one Silent Generation, a couple Boomers, and me, the Gen X kid.

When we moved in two years ago, we weren't ready to be all “out and proud.” We barely managed to afford the place, thanks to the VA and my husband turning 55. Even then, it was a stretch. We were broke when we got here, but we put out small pride garden flags and an “In This House We Believe” sign to show who we are. It wasn’t much, but it was a start.

I’m not usually a yard-sign kind of person, but I believe in existing loudly as a marginalized person. It pisses off the right when we’re just happy and living our lives, and that’s reason enough for me. No one else in the neighborhood had signs, and we figured our pride flag said enough. Then a new set of MAGAts moved in and put out their Trump signs. Naturally, I picked up a Harris/Walz sign.

I got mine from the campaign—union-made, union-printed, and pricey to ship. Theirs came from China, cheap junk off Amazon. That’s the difference between us and them.

While waiting for my sign, the Trump signs came down. I figured the HOA intervened, though I knew California law protects homeowners’ free speech rights, even in HOAs. When my sign arrived, it went up right away, tucked in a bed of flowers by the carport—looking pretty cute, honestly.

We got a call from the HOA asking us to take it down, citing the CC&Rs. It wasn't in the CC&Rs, and we knew the law, so we pushed back. They quickly backed down, admitting the CC&Rs hadn’t been updated for years. Meanwhile, I learned the MAGAts had gotten a letter from the management company, and they just obeyed without question. They didn’t even check if it was legal—like dumbasses.

I briefly considered telling them they could put their signs back up, but then I remembered the paradox of tolerance and shrugged it off. If they’re willing to silence themselves, let them. They only put their signs back up the day before the election, and ours came down the morning after. Theirs are still up. I do appreciate when Nazis identify themselves clearly.

Our sign and pride flag caused some behind-the-scenes kerfuffle, but no one complained to me directly. N and V asked if the HOA had given me trouble and were shocked when I explained the law and how we pushed back. Apparently, there was a sign war in the past—probably back in 2016. The HOA had to step in, likely for aesthetic reasons. We live in a nice park with well-kept gardens, and people get picky about weeds.

Despite the complaints, we found “our people” here. All the dog walkers, the woman from India who wanted Kamala to win, the guy with the Dodgers obsession, V’s neighbors, the folks two doors up who complimented our pride flag. Suddenly, I didn’t feel so alone.

After the election, we’ve been checking in with each other—lamenting the loss, talking about what’s next. V invited me in, showed me the dolls and stuffed animals she makes, and welcomed me over anytime for coffee and sourdough. N’s the kind of guy I’d invite to a BBQ. Once we finish our landscaping, I’m definitely inviting them over for a doggie playdate.

I lost a lot in this election. The cynical side of me saw it coming. I knew in 2020 that Biden was the wrong choice and that we were setting ourselves up for another Trump term. Still, I let myself hope—just a little—that maybe this time we’d break that last glass ceiling. And of course, the expected happened. It hurts. But in the chaos, I found community.

I also sell buttons on Etsy, and since Election Day, I've had a flood of orders for my “You Are Safe With Me” pride buttons. The work is appreciated, but more than that, it’s comforting. People are scared and reaching out, and I can offer love, support, some buttons, and my refusal to be silenced.

I don’t know what’s coming. I know it won’t be good, and I’m shattered that our own people plunged us into this mess. But at least there’s community. At least we’re not alone.

I ordered a new one of those corny “In This House We Believe” signs just to annoy the MAGAts up the hill. Our pride flag is wearing out, so I’m replacing it with a transgender pride flag—just to rile them up a bit more. Don’t let Nazis ever feel comfortable.

Here’s to the little pockets of resistance. Remember, your joy really annoys the hell out of them.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

This is the final piece in our series on AI art. We’ve talked about AI art as an act of civil disobedience, dissected the misinformation surrounding AI, addressed the pitfalls of copyright law, explored the political divide, and imagined a future where AI and creativity coexist equitably. Now, let’s look at the real, tangible steps we can take to start building that future today.

Step 1: Advocate for Fair Compensation Models

The first step towards an equitable world for AI art is making sure that artists are paid fairly, especially when their work is used as part of AI training datasets. We need to push for industry standards like the ones Adobe and Shutterstock have adopted, where artists are compensated when their work contributes to AI training. This means advocating for policies that require companies developing AI tools to share profits with the artists whose work they’re benefiting from. Whether it’s through royalties, profit-sharing, or other compensation models, fair pay needs to be at the center of any discussion about AI art.

Step 2: Support Regulation to Prevent Abuse

We need thoughtful, well-crafted regulation to ensure that AI isn’t used for harmful purposes. This includes not only regulating misinformation campaigns, as we’ve seen attempted (though unsuccessfully) in recent election cycles, but also ensuring that AI is developed and used ethically across the board. Artists and technologists need to be at the table when these regulations are written, so they reflect the needs and values of the creative community, not just corporate interests. AI should be a public good, not a weapon to exploit or deceive.

Step 3: Push for Decentralized Platforms

The platforms artists use to share their work should empower creators, not take advantage of them. By supporting and advocating for decentralized platforms, we can ensure that artists have more control over their work and their earnings. Blockchain technology can help here—not the cryptocurrency side that’s been overhyped and exploited, but the part that allows for transparent and tamper-proof records of ownership and transactions. Supporting platforms that leverage this technology can help ensure artists are compensated every time their work is used, resold, or shared, cutting out middlemen who take large percentages of the profits.

Step 4: Educate to Demystify AI

A lot of the fear and backlash against AI art comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI is and how it works. We need to demystify AI, make it accessible, and help people understand that it’s not a magic box that “steals” art but a tool that learns from patterns. Educational initiatives—workshops, online courses, or even community-led discussions—can help artists, audiences, and policymakers alike get a clearer picture of what AI is capable of, and what it isn’t. The more people understand AI, the less likely they are to see it as inherently threatening.

Step 5: Create and Participate in Artist Communities

An equitable AI art world will only happen if artists support each other. We need to build and participate in communities where artists—traditional, digital, and AI-assisted—can come together, share knowledge, and collaborate. By standing together, artists can collectively push back against exploitative practices, advocate for fair policies, and share resources that help everyone thrive. Community isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s the foundation of any meaningful movement for change.

Step 6: Embrace Hybrid Art Forms

One of the most powerful things we can do is embrace the possibilities that AI offers for new, hybrid forms of art. Instead of seeing traditional art and AI art as being at odds, we should be exploring the ways they can complement each other. Painters who use AI to generate inspiration, digital artists who combine hand-drawn elements with AI outputs, sculptors who use generative design—all of these are examples of how AI can enhance creativity rather than replace it. By embracing hybrid forms, we expand what art can be, and who can be an artist.

Step 7: Push for Universal Basic Security

None of this works if artists are struggling just to survive. The most important step towards an equitable creative world is ensuring that everyone has the basic security they need to live and create. Universal basic income, access to healthcare, and affordable housing are essential if we want people to be able to focus on making art without fear of losing everything. This isn’t just about AI art—it’s about creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to be creative, to contribute, and to thrive.

A Future We Can Start Building Today

The future we’ve imagined throughout this series might seem far off, but every step counts. By advocating for fair compensation, supporting regulation, pushing for decentralized platforms, educating about AI, building strong communities, embracing hybrid forms, and fighting for universal security, we can start to lay the foundation for an equitable world where creativity isn’t constrained by fear, gatekeeping, or exploitation. It’s not just about the tools we use—it’s about how we use them, and how we treat each other as we do.

AI art isn’t the end of creativity. It’s a new chapter, and it’s up to us to decide what kind of story we want to tell.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

This is the fifth piece in our series on AI art. In the previous pieces, we explored AI art as an act of civil disobedience, the misinformation surrounding it, the pitfalls of copyright law, and the political divide over AI. Now, let’s dream a bit. Let’s imagine what an equitable world would look like if we fully embraced AI art and restructured our society to foster creativity without fear, gatekeeping, or exploitation.

Imagine a world where everyone, regardless of income or background, has the ability to create art. No barriers, no gatekeeping, just access to the tools that let you bring your imagination to life. This world doesn’t look like the one we live in now—not by a long shot. But it’s the kind of world we could build if we were willing to change the way we think about technology, ownership, and the value of creativity.

Still, having this basic security doesn't mean that artists can't make money from their craft. In fact, it would allow them to ply their craft without the desperation of needing every project to be a financial success. Whether you're painting murals, designing for clients, or using AI to create commissioned pieces, there is space to thrive and earn beyond the baseline. Artists could profit from doing what they love, in whatever medium they choose, with the added freedom of knowing their survival doesn’t hinge on the outcome of each piece.

Where Do Traditional Artists Fit?

In this equitable world, traditional artists have just as much of a place as those who use AI. The idea isn’t to replace one form of art with another, but to create an environment where all forms of creativity are valued. Traditional artists would still be celebrated for the unique skill, dedication, and craftsmanship they bring to their work. AI doesn’t diminish the value of a hand-painted piece or a meticulously crafted sculpture; instead, it can exist alongside these works, offering new possibilities for hybrid forms of art or simply being a different creative path for those who choose it.

Think about it like furniture. Once, all furniture was handcrafted by artisans, each piece unique and painstakingly made. With the rise of machine-made furniture, suddenly there were inexpensive options that almost anyone could afford. But instead of making handmade furniture obsolete, it highlighted the value of skilled craftsmanship. People still seek out custom, handcrafted pieces because they recognize the quality, care, and individuality in them. In the same way, traditional artists in this world would continue to be sought after, precisely because of the unique touch they bring that no machine-made process can fully replicate.

Traditional artists might also use AI as an augmentation tool. Imagine a painter who uses AI to generate preliminary sketches, helping them explore composition ideas faster before committing to the canvas. Or a sculptor who uses generative design to visualize their next piece in 3D before beginning the physical work. AI, in this world, becomes another tool in the artist's toolkit—one that complements rather than replaces their existing skills and talents.

However, in this world, we would also recognize the importance of putting safeguards in place to prevent nefarious use of AI. AI has immense potential, but without regulation, it could easily be used for harm. For example, hostile countries or bad actors could weaponize AI to spread misinformation or cause harm to people—a very real threat that has been discussed extensively, especially during recent election cycles. Regulation is necessary for any public service, and AI should be no different. Just as we use safety measures in construction or public health, we need guidelines to ensure that AI is used ethically and responsibly.

Rethinking Copyright and Compensation

In our imagined world, copyright wouldn’t be about ownership and control—it would be about fair compensation. Artists would be paid not just for the initial sale of their work, but for the value it generates over time. This would mean a shift from seeing art as a product to be bought and sold to seeing it as an ongoing contribution to a cultural commons. When AI uses an artist’s work as part of its training, the artist would be compensated fairly. Companies like Adobe and Shutterstock have started doing this, but it would become the standard, not the exception. Every artist would benefit from the role their work plays in shaping the creative landscape, even if it’s through a generative AI.

Community, Not Competition

Instead of a society that pits artists against each other in competition for scarce resources, we’d have a society that values collaboration and community. Creativity would be seen as a collective endeavor—something we all benefit from. AI would be a tool that enhances our ability to collaborate, not something that isolates us. Imagine artists working together with AI to create large-scale projects, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, not because they need to sell the work to survive, but because it’s what they love to do.

Decentralized Platforms and Direct Access

In an equitable world, the platforms that artists use to share and sell their work wouldn’t be owned by massive corporations that take huge cuts of their earnings. Instead, we’d have decentralized platforms—places where artists can directly connect with their audiences, set their own terms, and receive the full value of their work. Technology like blockchain could be used to ensure transparency and fairness, making sure artists get compensated every time their work is used or resold. Unlike cryptocurrencies, which most people associate with blockchain, this use of blockchain is purely about creating a public and tamper-proof record of ownership and transactions. It would mean that every time an artist's work changes hands, there is a transparent and verifiable record, ensuring they receive their fair share. The power wouldn’t lie with the gatekeepers—it would lie with the creators.

Creativity as a Right, Not a Privilege

Most importantly, creativity would be seen as a right, not a privilege. In our current world, the ability to make art is often restricted to those who can afford the time, the tools, and the training. But in an equitable world, we’d understand that creativity is fundamental to what it means to be human. It’s how we express ourselves, how we understand each other, how we make sense of the world. AI, in this context, would be part of a broader movement to ensure that everyone has the tools they need to be creative—whether that’s through traditional mediums or new technologies.

A Fantasy Worth Fighting For

It might sound like a fantasy, but it’s a fantasy worth fighting for. AI has the potential to fundamentally change the way we create and share art, but only if we’re willing to think bigger than the systems we have now. Instead of fearing the changes that AI brings, we could be embracing them, using them to build a world that values every artist, every creator, and every voice. One of the most important things that makes us human is our ability to use tools, not just for survival, but to enhance our collective experience. It’s not about the technology—it’s about how we choose to use it, how we wield these tools to make all our lives better.

In the next piece, we’ll wrap up this series by looking at the real, practical steps we can take today to move towards this vision. It may be a long road, but every step counts.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

This is the fourth piece in our series on AI art. In the previous pieces, we explored how refusing to disclose AI use can be an act of civil disobedience, the misinformation surrounding AI, and the pitfalls of relying on copyright law. Now, we’re diving into the political split around AI art—how it’s strangely divided along party lines and why the left’s stance might need a second look.

It’s kind of ironic when you think about it. The political left, which usually champions accessibility, equity, and democratizing resources, has taken a largely resistant stance towards AI art—a tool that could do precisely those things. AI can provide access to creative tools for those who don’t have formal training, expensive software, or years to hone niche skills. And yet, the loudest opposition to AI art often comes from those who, on paper, are supposed to be all for leveling the playing field.

The Fear of Job Loss and the Exploitation Narrative

One of the big reasons for this resistance comes from a concern for workers—artists, illustrators, and others who fear losing their livelihoods. This is an important concern, no doubt. People’s ability to earn a living shouldn’t be compromised by the adoption of any technology. But here's the thing: this fear, while understandable, often overlooks the real problem—how the technology is used, not the technology itself. The left should be focusing on building structures that protect workers from exploitation, regardless of what tools they use.

The original Luddites weren’t against machines. They were against the use of machines to exploit labor and undercut skilled workers. AI art is like any other tool—it can be used to liberate people from menial tasks or it can be used to exploit and replace them. The difference is in how we choose to integrate these technologies. With the right frameworks in place—universal basic income, proper regulation, and fair compensation—AI doesn’t have to be a job killer; it can be a job enhancer, allowing artists to do more, earn more, and spend more time on what they love rather than what pays the bills.

Gatekeeping the Creative Process

Another big factor here is the romanticization of the artist’s struggle. There’s a deep cultural narrative around the “purity” of creativity—that art should be the product of raw human toil, soul-baring effort, and long hours of labor. AI somehow disrupts this idea, because it allows people to bypass some of the manual steps in the process. But this narrative is more about gatekeeping than about art itself.

The truth is, not everyone has the privilege to spend endless hours perfecting their craft. Not everyone has the resources for an art education, or the freedom to create without worrying about rent. AI, in this sense, democratizes creativity. It gives more people access to the tools that help them bring their visions to life. Isn’t that something the left, with its emphasis on equity, should be celebrating?

By dismissing AI art, we’re effectively saying that only those with enough time, money, and resources deserve to be called “real” artists. That’s not progressivism. That’s just gatekeeping wrapped in romantic ideals.

The Hypocrisy of Copyright and Capitalist Structures

The left’s reliance on copyright as a way to shut down AI art also runs counter to its own values. Copyright law, as we discussed before, doesn’t actually protect artists—it protects those who can afford to own art. It’s a tool of capitalist control, not creative empowerment. Leaning on it to argue against AI art simply reinforces the same exploitative systems that have always kept artists down. Instead of falling back on outdated copyright laws, we should be looking for new ways to ensure artists are compensated—ways that aren’t tied to the capitalist ownership of creative output.

AI offers an opportunity to rethink how we value and compensate creative work. Instead of focusing on owning every brushstroke, what if we focused on shared benefits, ongoing compensation, and community value? What if we saw art not as a product to be hoarded, but as a contribution to a cultural commons?

A Missed Opportunity for Inclusivity

The irony is that AI has the potential to bring more voices into the creative world—voices that have been historically excluded. Imagine a young queer kid who can’t afford art school but finds their way to express themselves through AI tools. Imagine someone with a disability that makes traditional forms of art inaccessible, but who can now create because AI is available to them. AI, used ethically, could amplify marginalized voices, create more diverse art, and challenge the very gatekeeping structures that have made the art world so exclusive.

The left’s fear of AI, then, feels like a missed opportunity. Instead of seeing AI as a threat, we could be embracing it as a chance to build a more inclusive creative landscape—one where more people can participate, more voices can be heard, and more artists can thrive. But that means shifting the focus away from fear and towards thoughtful integration. It means demanding that companies using AI compensate artists, that tech be developed with ethics in mind, and that we as a society value creativity not by how it’s made, but by what it brings to our world.

In our next piece, we'll explore what an equitable world that embraces AI art might look like—how we could restructure our society to make creativity accessible to all, without fear, gatekeeping, or exploitation. It may all be fantasy, but it's a good one.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

This is the third piece in our series on AI art. In the previous pieces, we explored how refusing to disclose AI use can be seen as civil disobedience, and we dissected the misinformation surrounding AI art that distracts us from the real issues.

If there’s one thing that often gets brought up in discussions about AI art, it’s copyright. Critics say that AI art is stealing, that it violates copyright, and that artists should be protected by the law. But here's the truth: copyright law, as it currently stands, doesn’t actually do much to protect artists. If anything, it’s set up to benefit the corporations and gatekeepers who profit off creative work far more than the creators themselves.

Take the concept of work-for-hire as an example. When I worked as an Art Director for a TTRPG company, one of the requirements was to use work-for-hire contracts with the artists I commissioned. They warned me that some artists would resist this, and they were right—some did push back, and often it meant I had to work with less established artists who were willing to sign. It felt exploitative, like we were taking advantage of younger or less knowledgeable artists, the ones more likely to give up all their rights because they didn’t know any better or didn’t have a choice. I still went ahead with it, and the artists I found who accepted these terms told me they were okay with it—they were allowed to display the originals but not profit from them. Still, it left me with a clear understanding of how copyright law is structured: to protect the owners of the work, not the creators.

I don't think a lot of people really understand what this means. It’s the same reason musicians can lose access to everything they've created, why photographers can have their entire body of work owned by someone else, or why almost any creative can be left with nothing despite being the original author. Copyright law wasn’t set up to help us or protect us—it was set up to protect those with the resources to claim ownership.

The same principles apply when it comes to AI art. People arguing that stricter copyright enforcement is the answer to AI overlook how the system already fails human artists. Copyright is supposed to be about protecting creative work, but in reality, it’s about who has the power to enforce their claims. Large corporations, with their legal teams and deep pockets, are well-equipped to use copyright law to their advantage, while individual artists often can’t afford the costs of defending their rights. This imbalance means that even if we tried to apply copyright law more rigorously to AI, it wouldn’t solve the underlying problem—it would just give more power to those who already have it.

It’s also worth noting that copyright law has always struggled to adapt to new technologies. Photography faced backlash when it first emerged—traditional artists argued that photographs weren’t “real” art and worried that their livelihoods were under threat. The same thing happened when digital art tools like Photoshop entered the scene. Copyright law was never designed with these kinds of advancements in mind, and it’s been playing catch-up ever since. Now, with AI, we’re seeing history repeat itself. The law isn’t equipped to deal with a technology that learns from vast datasets to generate new, unique works, and trying to shoehorn AI into outdated legal frameworks just doesn’t make sense.

Instead of leaning on copyright as a way to shut down AI art, we should be rethinking how we support and value artists in a world where technology is rapidly evolving. What if we shifted the focus from rigid ownership to a model that emphasizes fair compensation and shared benefits? Imagine a system where artists are paid not just for the initial creation of a work, but for the value it generates over time—where their contributions are recognized, even if the work is used or adapted in new ways by AI or other technologies.

Despite these challenges, there are some positive changes happening. Companies like Adobe, Shutterstock, and Wirestock have started compensating artists whose work contributes to AI training datasets. In fact, I’ve personally experienced this: Adobe has paid me twice for the use of my images in training their Firefly model, which gave my Adobe Stock account a nice bump I wouldn’t have otherwise seen. This kind of fair compensation is a step in the right direction, ensuring that creators are recognized and rewarded, even when their work is used in emerging technologies like AI.

Getty Images is another interesting case. While their lawsuit against Stability AI and other companies is still ongoing, it's led to a broader discussion about responsible AI use and fair compensation for artists. Getty has begun implementing measures to ensure that artists whose works are part of training datasets are rewarded. These examples show that change is possible, and that technology can evolve in a way that supports, rather than exploits, creators. But if we try to control it with the same old copyright laws that have always prioritized corporate interests, we’re just going to end up reinforcing the existing power dynamics that keep artists at the bottom. The goal shouldn’t be to shut down AI art—it should be to ensure that artists, both traditional and AI-assisted, are empowered and fairly compensated for their work.

The conversation about copyright and AI needs to move beyond fear and protectionism. We need to start talking about how to create a new framework that actually works for artists—a framework that acknowledges the realities of technological change and focuses on equity, access, and fair treatment. Copyright, as it stands, isn’t the solution. It’s part of the problem.

In our next piece, we’ll look at the strange political divide on AI art—why the right-wing seems more accepting of it while the left-wing is wary, and why that split feels so counterintuitive given the usual values associated with each side.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

This is the second piece in our series on AI art. In the previous piece, we explored how refusing to disclose the use of AI in art can be seen as a form of civil disobedience—a stand against unfair stigmas imposed on artists.

The narrative surrounding AI art today is flooded with misinformation. Too many people, influenced by fear or misunderstanding, treat AI like an ominous entity—something fundamentally dangerous, out to steal from artists, or replace creativity itself. It’s a narrative driven by emotion rather than fact, and it’s distracting us from the real problem, which isn’t the technology but the system that seeks to use it for exploitation.

There are loud voices online claiming that AI art is theft, that it steals the work of other artists to generate something new. On the surface, it’s easy to buy into this narrative—it sounds righteous, like it’s protecting artists from some Big Bad Machine. But the truth is, this interpretation of AI is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the technology works. 

Part of the knee-jerk reaction people have to AI art comes from the difficulty of understanding how this training works. It involves programming languages, algorithms, and complex math—abstract concepts that can be tough to grasp. For those who aren’t tech-savvy, it's easy to assume that AI just copies portions of images from the web, simply because they can understand how images are stored and displayed. 

The reality is that AI doesn’t stitch together bits of existing images—such a process would be inefficient and impractical, especially with the vast number of images involved. Instead, AI generates based on learned representations, a concept that can be difficult for many to grasp. 

This gap in understanding leaves ample room for misinformation, especially in an era of social media where everyone feels pressured to have an immediate, authoritative opinion.

It’s nothing that different from what human artists do, really. We learn by studying others, by absorbing different styles, by experimenting with what’s been done before. We internalize all the art we’ve seen—the compositions, the color palettes, the techniques—and we synthesize it into something that is uniquely ours. AI isn’t replacing that process; it’s accelerating it, assisting it, allowing artists to access inspiration, iterate faster, and test ideas that would otherwise be impossible. But people fear what they don’t understand, and instead of seeing AI as another medium—like digital art or photography—they see it as a threat. And that’s exactly where the real issues get buried.

The loudest arguments against AI art are all about its supposed moral failings, but meanwhile, the actual dangers—corporate control of creative tools, consolidation of power in tech giants, exploitation of creative labor—slip by without nearly as much resistance. Think about it: big companies are the ones developing these AI tools, the ones holding the keys to the technology, and the ones most likely to wield it without concern for ethics or fairness. If the argument is about protecting artists, then the focus should be on making sure those entities are held accountable, that they aren’t using technology to exploit creatives or strip them of their livelihoods. Instead, we get people wasting energy on attacking individual artists who are just trying to use the tools available to them.

And let’s not forget the history of all this. The so-called “threats” of AI art are nothing new. People have been manipulating photos as long as photos have existed, creating composites, playing with reality, and even back then, people worried about authenticity. But as technology became more understood, we learned to accept it as part of the artist’s toolkit. The same applies to digital art—when Photoshop first came onto the scene, traditional artists decried it as fake, as cheating. Now, it’s a staple of the creative world.

We’ve seen this fear time and time again. Every time a new technology disrupts the status quo, people cry out in panic, convinced it’s the end of “real” art. But it’s never the tools that are the issue—it’s how they’re used, who controls them, and whether we’re allowed the freedom to wield them ourselves. AI is just the latest chapter in that long history of creative evolution, but instead of embracing the possibilities it brings, people are being sidetracked by reactionary fears, and all the while, the real danger—capitalism’s exploitation of creativity—marches on.

In reality, misinformation about AI art is a convenient distraction. It allows people to focus their anger on a tool instead of on the power structures that shape how that tool is used. It’s easier to say “AI art is bad” than it is to dismantle a system that treats art as a commodity to be mined for profit, regardless of the impact on the actual artists. It’s easier to police the tools than to challenge the industries that decide how those tools are wielded.

The real conversation we need to be having isn’t about whether AI art is real or fake—it’s about who controls the technology, who benefits from its use, and how we ensure that artists, not corporations, reap the rewards of their creativity. We need to get past the fear-mongering, the knee-jerk reactions, and start asking the deeper questions: How can we make sure these technologies are democratized, accessible, and empowering for all artists, rather than just another means for corporations to cut costs and increase profits?

In our next piece, we'll explore how copyright law intersects with AI art, and why leaning on traditional copyright protections isn't the solution people think it is. We'll examine how current laws are set up more to benefit corporations than individual artists and how this system plays into the wider challenges faced by creators in the age of AI.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

Imagine this: a customer comes to you, excited about a piece of art. They love the colors, the vibe, the way it speaks to their personality. You’ve spent days discussing the details—talking about their favorite colors, animals, the essence they want captured. You put hours into crafting it. The idea was yours, the prompts were refined again and again, and then it all culminated in the hands-on labor of turning that concept into a finished button, ready to be worn and loved. And then, because you’re honest, you mention that you used AI as part of the process, and suddenly, the excitement fades to nothing. They vanish.

Or take another scenario: someone buys a tarot deck at a flea market, enamored by its stunning artwork, the care in each card’s design. Until, that is, they read the accompanying booklet and find out that the artist used AI to help create it. Immediately, the deck—which they loved moments ago—becomes offensive to them. They take to the internet to rant about it.

These aren’t isolated incidents. They’re part of a much larger wave of backlash against AI art—a wave that’s deeply misinformed, hypocritical, and often just plain hurtful. AI artists are being asked to disclose their methods in ways no other artists are. If you do a hand painting, and then digitally tweak the colors or adjust the composition in Photoshop, no one is telling you to label it “hand-modified with digital tools.” You don’t have to explain your process step-by-step. But AI art? AI art gets treated like it’s a different beast altogether—a lesser one. It’s almost like wearing a scarlet letter, declaring yourself an outsider in the creative world.

But here’s the thing: refusing to disclose that you’ve used AI isn’t about dishonesty. It’s an act of civil disobedience. It’s a rejection of an unfair stigma placed on artists simply for using modern tools. It’s about standing up against the narrative that says some art is “real” and some art isn’t, based purely on whether it fits into a traditional, romanticized idea of how art should be made. AI isn’t magic. It doesn’t dream up images from nothing—it works with you, helping bring your vision to life. The idea is yours, the prompting is yours, the refining is yours. It’s labor, and it’s art. Dismissing it because of the tool you used? That’s not criticism—it’s gatekeeping.

In the context of history, artists have always used the best tools available to them. We celebrate photographers who pushed the limits of their cameras, sculptors who innovated with new materials, digital artists who transformed what could be done with a computer. None of these artists were told to apologize for their methods, or to disclose the brand of their paintbrushes, the type of camera film, or the software version they used. So why should it be different now? Why should AI artists be forced to bear that extra burden, especially when it’s really just about pandering to an uninformed and fearful public?

This push to label AI art as somehow “less-than” isn’t just about transparency. It’s about control—about forcing artists who use AI to identify themselves so they can be scrutinized, criticized, and yes, sometimes attacked. We’re the ones bearing the brunt of all this noise, all this anger, while companies cave in to a loud but misguided audience, asking us to disclose our ‘secret’ methods. And yet, when it comes down to it, these customers love the art until they know how it was made. That’s how you know this whole thing is about perception, not quality. They love it, and then they’re told it’s AI, and suddenly the same piece loses its value. That’s a problem with their understanding, not with the art itself.

Choosing not to disclose your use of AI isn’t about tricking anyone. It’s about refusing to participate in a system that devalues your creativity because it doesn’t conform to outdated norms. It’s about refusing to let other people define what is and isn’t art based on their own misconceptions. It’s about insisting that your work deserves respect, regardless of the tools you used to make it.

This is civil disobedience in the art world—a concept famously discussed by Henry David Thoreau, who argued that individuals should resist unjust systems even if it means breaking the rules. Thoreau once said, “Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.“—a small but meaningful stand against the forces that want to keep creativity in a tiny, comfortable box. It’s a refusal to let the fear of new technology dictate what is and isn’t acceptable. It’s declaring that art is about ideas, connection, and craft, not about how much you “suffered” or what tools you used to make it.

In the next piece, we'll dive into how misinformation and misconceptions around AI are creating a smokescreen that distracts us from the real issues. We'll look at why people are so quick to condemn AI art, and how this fear-mongering is keeping us from seeing the bigger picture.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

Just to start: I'm not a Democrat, and I'd rather drink bleach than call myself a Republican. I'm a progressive leftist—all American parties are too far right or center-right for my taste. But I caucus with the Democrats because I'm not an idiot.

Thank whatever god doesn't exist that Kamala Harris isn't doing every media interview that comes her way. Watching the debate and her first interview had me gagging—not because of what she said, but because of what she didn't get to say. She had to answer questions that only the idiot side of America can't seem to get past.

OMG, like, answer to changing your positions!! Politicians change positions all the time, Karen. For political reasons, for personal reasons, for scientific reasons, for factual reasons. A politician whose views never evolve is a massive red flag. Life is change, death is stagnation.

Why are groceries so expensive, huh, Kamala?!?!?! Okay, Karen, quick lesson: Inflation was caused by COVID. We had to inject a bunch of money into the economy that wasn't there before to make it through, and the result is inflation. And yeah, some of it is also price gouging because capitalism is a beast. I drive an extra five miles to go to WinCo because their prices are way lower than Albertsons down the street. If WinCo can do it, Albertsons can too—they just choose not to, because unregulated capitalism allows that. A lot of that deregulation (though not all) came from Republicans.

Why Black lady so loud and laugh so much?!! Stop being a motherfucking racist, grow up, and act like a whole-ass adult, Karen.

These are the kinds of questions I'm beyond tired of. I want her to talk policy in-depth. She used the words I wanted to hear on Israel-Palestine—”two-state solution”—but we never got to hear how that's supposed to happen. She talked about tax breaks and bonuses to help people out and pull the economy back on track, but again, not in the depth I wanted. And I don't believe it's because she's afraid to answer those questions, I believe it's because she's too busy answering the stupid questions and dancing on eggshells for children who don't even know how government works. 

So when people whine about her avoiding typical media or only doing friendly interviews, I get mad. I want her to talk to friendly interviewers so we can skip the childish bullshit questions and actually get to the issues. I know I'm voting for her, but I want to hear more about what she's going to do because I'm a fucking adult, and I want to have grown-ass adult conversations.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.

These days, it feels like everything is starting to look the same. The things we see on social media, the products we buy, even the ads we watch—everything seems like it's cut from the same boring mold. That’s because social media and data-driven marketing have pushed businesses to play it safe and aim for what works for the largest group of people. But for small businesses, this is a trap. Instead of following the crowd, small businesses need to stay true to what makes them unique and find the people who appreciate that. Let’s talk about why it’s so important for small businesses to do things differently.

The Social Media Copycat Cycle

Social media is one of the biggest reasons why everything feels so similar. Platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok use algorithms to show us content that’s popular and gets the most likes, shares, and comments. The result? Everyone tries to copy what’s working to stay visible, which means we end up seeing the same trends, styles, and ideas over and over again. It gets old fast.

Think of it like a snowball rolling downhill—these platforms keep pushing the same kinds of posts because they’re already popular, and the snowball just keeps getting bigger without changing. Anything new or different gets buried because the algorithm favors content that’s familiar and easy to digest. Creativity becomes like trying to color outside the lines, but only getting praised if your colors look just like everyone else's. If you try something different that doesn’t fit what’s popular, it gets ignored, like you’re being punished for not following the rules.

Take, for example, the Instagram trend of the “clean girl” look—neutral colors, light makeup, and a perfectly curated lifestyle. It became popular because it was easy to copy, and the algorithm boosted it because it got lots of engagement. Or think about TikTok’s viral dance challenges: they’re fun, but they often drown out other kinds of creativity simply because they fit what the platform likes. Even businesses are doing the same thing, creating ads that look and sound alike just to keep up, with similar music, colors, and influencer promotions that make one brand blend into the next.

Why Playing It Safe Doesn’t Work for Small Businesses

Big companies love data. They use things like A/B testing and consumer analytics to figure out what works best, and then they stick to it. But for small businesses, this approach often doesn’t make sense. Data-driven decisions push companies towards what’s “average” because they’re based on what has worked before. It’s about playing it safe, and for big businesses, that’s fine—they want to appeal to the most people possible. But if you’re a small business, you need to stand out, not blend in.

Small businesses have the power to connect with niche groups that big corporations overlook. If you’re just chasing metrics or trying to win over social media algorithms, you’re probably falling into the same trap that makes big brands seem so boring. Plus, small businesses don’t have the resources to compete with the big guys when it comes to data. Instead, you should use your flexibility and passion to do things that the giants can’t.

The Myth of Chasing the Algorithm

Social media companies like to make small business owners think they have to chase the algorithm to succeed. They make it sound like if you’re not following the trends, you’re invisible. But the truth is, chasing the algorithm often means losing what makes you special, and for small businesses, that uniqueness is everything.

Algorithms are all about predictability. They reward posts that are similar to what’s already been popular. That’s why you see the same kind of content over and over again. The algorithm doesn’t care about your story or your values or the real connection you have with your community. It only cares about numbers. And while metrics can help, if all you’re doing is creating content for the algorithm, your brand starts to feel fake. People can tell when you’re just trying to please the algorithm.

For example, imagine an artisan who makes handmade goods and tries to jump on every new trend. They might see a bump in views, but they lose the deeper connection with customers who actually care about their craft. Compare that to a local bakery that shares photos of the baker’s messy hands or tells stories about where their ingredients come from. It’s not the kind of content that always goes viral, but it helps build a loyal following of people who truly care about what they do.

Small Businesses Leading the Way Back to Authenticity

Thankfully, we’re starting to see a pushback. People are tired of the same old content, and many small businesses are rejecting the obsession with numbers and sameness. Research from Gartner suggests that by 2027, about 20% of brands will focus on what they call an “acoustic brand” approach—branding that is more human, less focused on algorithms, and more about real connection. Small businesses are in a perfect spot to lead this movement because they can adapt quickly and stay true to their values.

Local and small brands are all about creating from the heart—products they care about, for communities they belong to. They’re not making decisions based on algorithms; they’re making them based on real connections. They adjust naturally, listen to feedback, and focus on meeting real needs instead of hitting certain engagement metrics.

Being truly creative is risky. It means stepping away from what's comfortable and trying something new, even if it might fail. But that’s where real innovation happens—when you take risks and do things differently, even if it means not getting the most likes or shares. Social media and algorithms often discourage this kind of boldness, but if small businesses are willing to take those creative leaps, they’ll stand out in a world full of sameness. It's important to remember that this is the harder path to follow—it takes courage to take risks and step away from what's comfortable. But it also ends with a sturdier customer base, one that doesn’t just see you when you’re being trendy and then ignore you the rest of the time. There’s a type of quality customer that values authenticity, and building those relationships is worth it.

The Future of Authenticity in Social Media

The sameness we see today is a product of how social media algorithms work, and as long as those algorithms are in place, they will continue to squash true creativity. It feels pointless to spend time on these platforms trying to fight an uphill battle against the algorithm. Maybe the real change will come if enough people decide to step away from these platforms altogether. If creators and businesses start walking away, it could force social media companies to rethink their behavior and how they prioritize content. Instead of trying to please the algorithm, it might be time to reconsider if it's worth being on these platforms at all.

It’s tough to resist when everyone is telling you that the only way for your small business to succeed is by fully embracing social media. But honestly, that’s nonsense. It’s a time sink that you don’t need. It pulls you away from creating new things and building real connections with your customers. Instead, you end up wasting all your time on content that, in the end, doesn’t make a lasting impact—unless you decide to conform and become just another bland business in a sea of sameness. 

The push for authenticity is growing, and small businesses can lead the way. They’re in the best position to show that success doesn’t come from following the same old rules but from making real, human connections. It’s going to take effort from businesses, creators, and consumers, but we can break away from the boring sameness and build a culture that values individuality, creativity, and above all – authenticity.

Final Thoughts

If you’re a small business owner, ask yourself: are you just chasing metrics, or are you truly connecting with your audience? Are you putting out content that you genuinely care about, or are you just trying to game the system for more clicks?

It’s hard to shift your mindset when the algorithm is constantly pushing you to be like everyone else. But it's worth taking a step back and questioning whether being part of that race is actually benefiting your business. Instead of focusing on pleasing an algorithm that wants predictability, focus on what makes your brand unique and how you can genuinely serve your customers. This might mean taking the harder road—posting content that won’t necessarily go viral but will resonate with your audience, sharing more personal stories, or just staying consistent with your values even when it isn’t trendy.

The best way forward is to embrace what makes you human—take risks, be different, and don’t settle for being average. Let’s make things that matter, not just things that sell.

---

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.

• Snopes – A well-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, rumors, and news stories.
• FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that checks the factual accuracy of U.S. political claims.
• PolitiFact – A fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
• AP Fact Check – Associated Press journalists fact-check claims in news stories, including statements by public figures and viral content.
• Full Fact – The UK's independent fact-checking organization.
• The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its Pinocchio ratings, it evaluates the truthfulness of political claims.
• Reuters Fact Check – Offers a range of fact-checking services that debunk misinformation across various topics.
• BBC Reality Check – Provides fact-checking services that clarify claims seen in news stories and on social media.